SHAHZAD AHMAD Versus THE STATE
Shahzad Ahmad sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 221 of 2001 registered under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(iii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Pharianwali, District Mandi Bahauddin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the medical report lacked an X-ray confirmation for the alleged fracture of the nasal bone, making the applicability of the prohibitory clause debatable, and when a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that without an X-ray report, it could not be determined at this stage whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause, and since the petitioner's case was at par with the co-accused who was already released on bail, the petition was allowed. The key principle laid down is that the absence of definitive diagnostic reports like X-rays creates a tentative assessment in favor of further inquiry into whether an offense falls within the prohibitory clause, justifying the grant of bail on the rule of consistency.
- Whether bail can be granted when the applicability of the prohibitory clause is debatable due to the absence of an X-ray report?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Shahzad Ahmad petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.221 of 2001, dated 3-11-2001 registered with Police Station Pharianwali, District Mandi Bahauddin under section 337-A(iii), 337-L(iii)/34, P.P.C. at the instance of Zulfiqar Ali with the allegation that on 31-10-2001 at 6-45 p.m. the petitioner alongwith others attacked the complainant party and the petitioner caused Sota blow on nose of Zulfiqar complainant.
2. The petitioner was declined relief for his after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin vide order, dated 10-1-2002. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant has been attributed only one Sota blow allegedly caused on his nose and according to M.L.R. no reason has been given to, declare the injury attributed to the petitioner under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. as there was no opinion about the fracture of the nasal bone and without X-Ray report such opinion could not be given by the doctor, therefore, the case of the petitioner is also at par with his co-accused who has already been granted bail.
4. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Learned counsel for complainant has supplemented his contentions by arguing that according to MLR the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. for which the punishment is 10 years which falls under the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner has been attributed injury on the nose of the complainant but according to the M.L.R. there was no X-ray report obtained to declare the injury attributed to the petitioner grievous or the fracture of nasal bone, therefore, it cannot be stated at this stage whether A the case of the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause. His case is also at par with his co-accused, who have been released on bail therefore, I am persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./S-40/L Bail granted.